Stable (Lectures)

Expressions researched:
"stable" |"stables" |"stablest" |"stabile" |"stability" |"stabilization" |"stabilize" |"stabilized"

Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures

If the soul can be cut or torn it loses its eternity or its stability.

Lecture on BG 2.13 -- New York, March 11, 1966: Soul never can be cut into pieces. You see? Just like here is a paper. I can, I can tore this paper into pieces, but it is not possible for the soul. Then it, then it loses its eternity or its stability. You see? So we cannot compare ether with soul because they are two different subject matters. You see? Analogy... Now, those who, those who are present here, those who have knowledge of logic, analogy... Analogy is possible when the two things are... When there are greatest number of similarities of two things, then there can be analogy. Otherwise there is no question of ana..., analogy.

Karmīs want some material profit and they want some material adoration, and stability.

Lecture on BG 2.20 -- Hyderabad, November 25, 1972: Karmīs, they want three things: lābha-pūjā-pratiṣṭhā. They want some material profit and they want some material adoration, and lābha-pūjā-pratiṣṭhā, and stability. This is material life. So one after another, we are trying to have some material profit, some material adoration, material reputation. And therefore we are having different types of body. And it is going on. Actually this acceptance of body does not mean I die. I am there. In subtle form, I am there. Na jāyate na mriyate. Therefore there is no question of birth and death. It is simply transformation of the body.

Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures

So we have to transcend the material goodness. Then, when we get stability of goodness, that is spiritual life.

Lecture on SB 1.3.26 -- Los Angeles, October 1, 1972: As passion is cause of bondage, ignorance is also cause of bondage, similarly, the material goodness is also cause of bondage. So we have to transcend the material goodness also. Then, when we get stability of goodness, that is spiritual life. When it is disturbed by passion and ignorance, that means it is not yet perfect. Therefore, sometimes we find a student is doing everything nice goodness, but he is attacked by passion and ignorance, and he becomes entangled.

So one rascal will fight with another rascal. So there is no stability of government.

Lecture on SB 1.9.2 -- Los Angeles, May 16, 1973: Just like nowadays the rascals, every day they are changing some law. Somebody told me, where? In Africa, every week there is change of the cabinet, every week. Means so full of rascals. So one rascal will fight with another rascal. So there is no stability of government. All these rascals, politicians, they are trying to occupy the post: "I shall become president, I shall become secretary, and then I shall exploit the state like anything." This is the motive. Their manifestation, that "I am going to give you heaven. If you select me president, then I shall give you heaven within three minutes."

If you simply, falsely claim that "I am everything of this city. Everything belongs to me," will that stabilize him, that he is everything?

Lecture on SB 7.9.8 -- Hawaii, March 21, 1969: So if you are not crazy, then we can talk with you. You are crazy. How you are everything? Prove that you are everything. What is the answer? What should be the answer that he is everything? Simply by claiming? If you simply, falsely claim that "I am everything of this city. Everything belongs to me," will that stabilize him, that he is everything? Then? How you are everything? Prove it.

Philosophy Discussions

Mao disagrees with the practical utility of Russian philosophy. So where is the stability? And similarly, the Russians don't agree with the Chinese.

Philosophy Discussion on William James:

Prabhupāda: But if it has bad effect then what is the use of it? It must have good effect. Effect must be there, but if it is bad, that is not practical. The effect must be good and continuous.

Viśāla: But that good result is relative, depending upon who is deciding whether it is good. In other words, Lenin or Mao, they feel that the practical result of their philosophy is good.

Prabhupāda: That's all right, but now Mao disagrees with the practical utility of Russian philosophy. So where is the stability? And similarly, the Russians don't agree with the Chinese, so what is practical for China is not practical for the Russians. So which one we shall take?

Viśāla: That which is practical for both.

Prabhupāda: That means both of them are not practical. It will be proved in due course of time.